I'd say that serves as a divine title. For the NT (or Jesus) to say God is the "only one" harkens back to the Shema (Deut 6:4). On that view, the Only One is a synonym for Yahweh–the one true God.

That would also explain why, on the most likely construction, John calls Jesus the "one true God" in 1 Jn 5:20. As a divine title and synonym for Yahweh, it's equally applicable to the Father and the Son.

And in that connection, Jn 17:3 is a flashback to Jn 10:30. Arguably, Jn 10:30 is an allusion to the Shema. In the context of a debate over the identity of Jesus in relation to the identity of God, "one" would inevitably evoke the central Jewish confession (Deut 6:4). It functions as a synecdoche for Yahweh.

Finally, it's not coincidental that Jn 17:3 is stated in the context of Christ's comparison and contrast between the unity of Christians and the unity of the Father and Son. That picks up on Jn 10:30 and develops an analogy. However, it's carefully compartmentalized. Christians aren't one with the Father. Rather, Christians are one with each other, analogous to how the Father and Son are one with each other (17:11,22).

There's a mediated sense in which Christians are one with God. If the Son is directly one with the Father, while Christians are directly one with the Son, then Christians are indirectly one with the Father (or God).

But that's because the incarnate Son is a bridge between God and man. Christians aren't one with the Son in the same sense that the Son is one with the Father.

46 comments:

Quite a lot of wheel spinning here. The strongest point, perhaps, is appealing to 1 John 5:20 - but of course that's a contentious reading. And of course if each is *the only* true God, then each just is the other. But that dog won't hunt.

"only true God" isn't, as a whole, a divine title. "God," and "true God" are. But here "true" modifies "God" and then "only" modifies "true God." It's telling us the number of true-gods: 1. (Exactly one, not at least one.)

Jesus is saying, to God, that eternal life consists in knowing God *and also*, knowing him, the one whom God sent. The clear parallel in 1 John is 1 John 1:3. Two objects of fellowship there - God and his Son - and two objects of knowledge here in John 17 - God and his Son, the man speaking.

Jesus (John) here assumes the truth of two claims: (1) the Father is "true God", and (2) no one else is - that's the force of "only," as you point out.

No, because then the number of "true Gods" would be two - it would be false that the Father is the only one. Compare: "Obama is the only true president of the USA." OK, well then Biden ain't. No one else is, because Obama's *the only one*. If Biden were also currently "true president", the original statement would be false.

Not convenient for catholic dogma, no. The trinitarian reader expects the Trintiy, not the Father, to be asserted as the one God, as we find clearly, e.g. in Augustine. This is why Augustine butted his head against this passage several times, in effect just asserting that the word order *should* be to the effect that eternal life consists in knowing *the Father and the Son* as the only true God. As bizarre as this move is, at least he felt the force of the "only" there. He just changed the text, rather than kicking up a cloud of dust around it.

Lay aside the riffing on "one" elsewhere in John. If Jesus in John 17 is saying that the Father is *the only* true God, then he'd be the god over all others, and so both Jesus's god and ours, right? We'd expect to maybe see that somewhere in the book. Right: John 20:17. The Father is Jesus's God. (Duh - Jesus is praying to him here!) The one true God, of course, is the god over everyone who has a god over him, which is to say: everyone else. Even the Lord Jesus.

Easier than all the torturous stretches trying to make this say what it "should" say,isn't it. Semper reformanda!

Dale, you have such a wooden grasp of language. You think linguistic meaning is like legos, as if each word necessarily has independent meaning, like separate legos, and it's a question of toting them up.

But there's such a thing as synonyms and idioms. For instance, the "one true God" in Jn 17:3 has the same referent as the "only God" in Jn 5:44. It's not as if the "only God" is a different God from the "only true God". And oftentimes, John just says "God" with no further qualifications. Yet it has the same referent.

The adjectives that modify "God" in Jn 17:3 aren't intended to differentiate the divine referent from other designations which lack some or all of those adjectives. Rather, these are synonymous divine titles. Different ways of designating the same referent.

For instance, the "only God" has LXX antecedents, viz. Ps 85(86):10; Isa 37:20. And the concept goes back to Deut 6:4.

In Jn 17:3, John adds "true". "True" and "truth" are among John's favorite worlds, to emphasize reality, in contrast to what's fake.

"God," the "one God", the "only God," the "true God", and the "one true God" are synonymous divine titles. Interchangable designations for the same divine referent.

By the same token, "Yahweh" is synonymous with the "one God" and the "true God", &c.

Jn 17:3 isn't a technical designation, where every word carries independent semantic force, in contrast to Jn 5:44, or the many uses of "God", unadorned by adjectives, in Johannine usage.

"The one true God, of course, is the god over everyone who has a god over him, which is to say: everyone else. Even the Lord Jesus."

One problem with that inference is Jn 3:31, which says the Son is above all, which, by your logic, which elevate him above the Father, as the Father's superior.

10. 1 John 5:20. Admittedly, biblical scholars are split on whether the “true God” in this text is the Father or the Son. Three considerations favor the Son. First, the closest antecedent for “this one” is Jesus Christ (“in his Son Jesus Christ. This one…”). Second, in 1:2 the “eternal life” is Jesus Christ (who was “with the Father”), an apparent example of inclusio (repetition of a theme or idea at the beginning and end of a text). Third, the confession form “This one is …” (houtos estin) strongly favors Jesus Christ, rather than the Father, as the subject, since John uses this language repeatedly with regard to Christ (John 1:30, 33, 34; 4:29, 42; 6:14, 42, 50, 58; 7:18, 25, 26, 40, 41; 1 John 5:6; of the man born blind, John 9:8, 9, 19, 20; of the disciple, John 21:24; of the anti-Christ, 1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7), but not once for the Father. John has just used this formula for Christ earlier in the same chapter (1 John 5:6).

The "is" of identity vs. the "is" of predication. This is indeed important. Was first taught this by J.P. Moreland at Biola.

Note that when analyzing quantified statements, we use the "is" of identity. I explain this in detail here. http://trinities.org/blog/god-and-his-son-the-logic-of-the-new-testament/ Right around here: https://youtu.be/Pt_3LWElWRw?t=12m19s Just standard logic class material. Let him who has brain to think, think!

Thanks for pointing out the source. It makes sense since Craig and Moreland have worked together as authors as well as both teaching at Biola.

Having said that, both me and Steve have (at times) used "divine" (instead of "God") in our dialogues with you to refer to the "is" of predication to help resolve the problems you see in the doctrine of the Trinity. Though you don't think it actually works.

You know as well as I do that that doesn't necessarily follow since you yourself admit that there are Trinitarian formulations that don't result in two divine beings. For example, you gave some legitimacy to James Anderson's attempt to answer one of your challenges.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, I'm referring to Anderson's blogposts like:

No, two non-identical beings each being divine, that is no more or less than two gods. Of course, there have long been interpretations of catholic Trinity language on which the "Persons" are not beings at all, and so not two different beings, but rather ways the one God is.

About the new-fangled appeal to constitution metaphysics of material objects - yeah, it's creative, but I've argued at great length that (1) it doesn't work, and (2) it wasn't what the historical catholics were asserting. On (1), I and now two others (Hasker, Leftow) have argued that it doesn't get around the polytheism objection.

Ergo, Jesus is omniscient AND Jesus is not omniscient. D'oh! If this "mystery" is good, how about this little wafer is Jesus's whole body, and it isn't?

I don't see a problem with appealing to a two minds view of the incarnation to make sense of Jesus omniscience and non-omniscience. With my limited understanding, it makes sense and isn't illogical, regardless of whether it's true or not. The question for Christians is whether it (or some other position) makes most sense of the Biblical data that teaches both the full deity and the full humanity of Christ.

If this "mystery" is good, how about this little wafer is Jesus's whole body, and it isn't?

Phrasing it that way, there would be a contradiction in that definition of transubstantiation and of the "Real Presence". I think there are ways of conceiving a "Real Presence" that may not be contradictory. For example, possibly the Lutheran understanding of consubstantiation and their understanding of Communicatio Idiomatum. The question for me is whether it (like the two minds view) "makes most sense of the Biblical data". I'm doubtful.

Yes, Dale, Jesus is omniscient in one respect, but not omniscient in another respect. That isn't even prima facie contradictory. It would only be contradictory to say Jesus is omniscient and not omniscience in the same respect.

To take a comparison, Dale can know that Charleston is a city in SC, and not know that Charleston is a city in SC. Both mental states can be true at different times in Dale's life.

When you raise simple-minded objections, it just makes you look like a simpleton. If that was your objective, you succeeded.

"If this 'mystery' is good, how about this little wafer is Jesus's whole body, and it isn't?"

Since that's your illustration, the onus is on you to provide a supporting argument to show how that's analogous to what I said.

Sure, I can know P and one time and fail to know P at another time. Nothing contradictory there - just real change.

And you're right, Steve - "Jesus is omniscient in one respect, but not omniscient in another respect" does not appear to be incoherent. But that's because we have no idea, really, what it means. It's a sort of place-holder for a claim. What are these "respects," and how are they related to Jesus and his knowledge or lack thereof?

We might guess, based on catholic tradition, that you mean: because he has a human mind, he doesn't know all, and because he has a divine mind he does know all. But then, it follows from this that he does and doesn't know all (at the same time).

You're the one whose arguments are running out. In fact, you're conceding that some of your objections are fallacious.

"But that's because we have no idea, really, what it means. It's a sort of place-holder for a claim. What are these "respects," and how are they related to Jesus and his knowledge or lack thereof?"

In my response to zipper778's inquiry, I gave specific illustrations. Try again.

"We might guess, based on catholic tradition, that you mean: because he has a human mind, he doesn't know all, and because he has a divine mind he does know all. But then, it follows from this that he does and doesn't know all (at the same time)."

If God is timeless, then Jesus has a divine mind that timelessly knows everything while his human mind doesn't know everything. But it wouldn't follow from this that he does and doesn't know everything at the same time, since one relatum of the relation is timeless.

"If God is timeless, then Jesus has a divine mind that timelessly knows everything while his human mind doesn't know everything. But it wouldn't follow from this that he does and doesn't know everything at the same time, since one relatum of the relation is timeless."

OK, so you don't understand divine eternity as God existing (and having his perfections) at all times, rather than at no times. I think that's a mistake. Not the place to argue it though. Granting all of that, your theory still has a tough problem with Jesus's statement in two gospels that he doesn't know the day or hour. In your view, he *does* know it, just not in the normal human way. But he hasn't denied knowing it in the normal human way; he's just denied knowing it, with no hint at any qualification. Of course, he knew full well that his hearers would think he didn't know it in any way. Thus, on your theory Jesus lied to his disciples on that occasion. This is an unwelcome consequence to be sure.

Compare: "Dale, you got a buck on you?" "No, I'm clean out."(But I know I've got a buck in my left pocket. I just *meant* that I had no buck in my right pocket.)

(But I know I've got a buck in my left pocket. I just *meant* that I had no buck in my right pocket.)

There many occasions in which Jesus tell the whole truth or spoke in a veiled or cryptic way. For example, in John 7:6-9 Jesus said that he would not be going up the feast because His time had not fully come. Yet in verse 10 He does attend the feast.

Or think of how Jesus said in John 2:19 "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The very next verse says "The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"" Clearly Jesus knew and understood that the Jews misinterpreted His statement, but He didn't go out of His way to correct them.

I've seen atheist John Loftus mention the following alleged Bible contradiction. In John 18:20 Jesus said, "I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret." Yet, we know that He spoke in parables in such a way so as to intentionally veil His teaching (Mark 4:10-12; Matt. 13:10-17; Luke 8:9-10). Both are true. It was understood back then that rabbis could have deeper meanings to their teaching which He didn't necessary share openly and publicly outside his inner circle of disciples. Sometimes even to the inner circle.

Also, the context of Jesus' statement in Mark 13:32 and Matt. 24:36 is what creatures could know about what God had hidden and kept secret. Why assume Jesus is speaking about Himself qua God? This is also Muslims are wrong in saying these two passages also teach the non-omniscience of the Holy Spirit (especially in light of 1 Cor. 2:10-11). In context, when Jesus refers to "the Son" in these two passages He seems to be referring to the title "Son of Man" rather than "Son of God". I believe both terms allude to Jesus' full deity, though the former in a veiled way that highlights His humanity since the phrase "son of man" in the OT merely meant "a human being". Only in the book of Daniel (7:13-14) does the phrase take on a new added meaning. Namely, a divine being in the appearance of a man. Which itself is an interesting hint in the OT that the the Messiah being both divine and human.

See Mike Heiser's interpretation of Dan. 7:13-14 at this video that I've already cued up to the right time. Watch it for about 8 1/2 minutes:

(But I know I've got a buck in my left pocket. I just *meant* that I had no buck in my right pocket.)

There are many occasions in which Jesus didn't tell the whole truth or spoke in a veiled or cryptic way. For example, in John 7:6-9 Jesus said that he would not be going up the feast because His time had not fully come. Yet in verse 10 He does attend the feast. Evidently, He intended not to go the feast publicly, but rather privately.

Or think of how Jesus said in John 2:19 "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The very next verse says "The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"" Clearly Jesus knew and understood that the Jews misinterpreted His statement, but He didn't go out of His way to correct them.

I've seen atheist John Loftus mention the following alleged Bible contradiction. In John 18:20 Jesus said, "I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret." Yet, we know that He spoke in parables in such a way so as to intentionally veil His teaching (Mark 4:10-12; Matt. 13:10-17; Luke 8:9-10). Both are true. It was understood universally back then that a rabbi could have deeper meanings to his teaching which He didn't necessary share openly and publicly outside his inner circle of disciples. Sometimes even to the inner circle. So long as there wasn't a true contradiction.

Also, the context of Jesus' statement in Mark 13:32 and Matt. 24:36 is what creatures could know about what God had hidden and kept secret. Why assume Jesus is speaking about Himself qua God? This is also why Muslims are wrong in saying these two passages also teach the non-omniscience of the Holy Spirit (especially in light of 1 Cor. 2:10-11). In context, when Jesus refers to "the Son" in these two passages He seems to be referring to the title "Son of Man" rather than "Son of God". I believe both terms allude to Jesus' full deity, though the former in a veiled way that highlights His humanity. Since the phrase "son of man" in the OT merely meant "a human being". Only in the book of Daniel (7:13-14) does the phrase take on a new added meaning. Namely, a divine being in the appearance of a man. Which itself is an interesting hint in the OT that the the Messiah would be both divine and human.

See Mike Heiser's interpretation of Dan. 7:13-14 at this video that I've already cued up to the right time. Watch it for about 8 1/2 minutes:

"The adjectives that modify "God" in Jn 17:3 aren't intended to differentiate the divine referent from other designations which lack some or all of those adjectives. Rather, these are synonymous divine titles. Different ways of designating the same referent."

This is just confused, Steve. "only" and "true" are not divine titles, nor are they synonymous with "God"! As I said, "true" modifies "god", resulting in the title "true God" (ascribed here to the Father), and "only" tells us that no one but the Father is that. Consider my Obama sentence again. It is not merely predicating the title "only true president" of him. It's saying that he's the real president, and also, that he's the only one. Two claims there, not one.

"Interchangable designations for the same divine referent."

Yes, "God," "YHWH," and "true God" etc. are supposed to be co-referring terms, in most contexts. And the one to whom they refer is the Father. Interestingly, not the Trinity. Tellingly, there is no biblical term what was originally meant to refer to the Trinity. Why do you suppose that is? Back the sources, if you're really a Protestant.

Sorry, but this is just flailing. I'm reading the whole sentence, and every word for its function in it. It's no harder than reading than my Obama sentence above. What's hard, is squaring it with your catholic theory.

"One problem with that inference is Jn 3:31, which says the Son is above all, which, by your logic, which elevate him above the Father, as the Father's superior. "

Puhlease. No, I'm not committed to that misreading. "Any" and "all" are context-relative; the context supplies the domain in question. There, see John 3:35 - obviously, this "all" given to Jesus by God/the Father doesn't include God himself. God doesn't put himself under the rule of anyone else. He's the Boss. Jesus is his right-hand man.

QUOTE The word Elohim is used thousands of times for “God”; Adonai is used hundreds of times for “Lord”; both of these words are plural nouns in Hebrew. A number of passages speak of the “faces” or “presences” or “persons” of God (Exodus 33:14; Deuteronomy 4:37; and Job 13:8). God refers to Himself as “Us,” “Our,” and “We” (Genesis 1:26, 2:18 (LXX), 3:22, 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, and 41:21-24),2 a phenomenon that is reflected in virtually every English translation. [I'm open to some of these passages referring to angels or "divine" beings in Yahweh's Divine Council - Annoyed Pinoy] The OT says of God, “they caused me to wander” (Genesis 20:13), “they appeared” (Genesis 35:7), “they drew nigh” (Deuteronomy 4:7), “they went” (2 Samuel 7:23), and “they judge” (Psalm 58:11). The OT calls God our “Creators” (Ecclesiastes 12:1), “Makers” and “Husbands” (Job 35:10; Psalm 149:2; Isaiah 54:5). The OT says that God is “holy” (Joshua 24:19; Proverbs 9:10, 30:33), another plural.END QUOTE

For those interested, more OT examples suggesting plurality in God can be found at my blogpost HERE

Dale wrote:There, see John 3:35 - obviously, this "all" given to Jesus by God/the Father doesn't include God himself. God doesn't put himself under the rule of anyone else. He's the Boss. Jesus is his right-hand2 man.

There are Trinitarian positions that can account for that. For example, those who hold to Eternal Functional Subordination (EFS) of the Son to the Father as I do. That doesn't in any way necessitate that the Son is any less deity than the Father.

The phrase "above all" (John 3:31) and other terms like "Lord of all" (Rom. 10:12) could (not illogically) be affirming the full deity of Christ without denying EFS. In fact, in context, Rom. 10:12 suggests Paul is self-consciously indentifying or (to use Craig/Moreland's distinction) predicating Jesus as fully divine (and as YHWH) since the very next verse (13) has Paul quoting and OT passage referring to YHWH and applying it to Jesus.

For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."- Rom. 10:13

Compare with:

"And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls."- Joel 2:32

This should be seen in light of verse 9 where Paul says part of the Apostolic message requires calling Jesus "Lord" even though his original audience would know that "kurios" was often the word used to translate YHWH in the LXX.

"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."- Rom. 10:9

Romans 10:13 explains what Paul means in Romans 10:9 when he teaches we are to affirm Jesus is Kurios (i.e. YHWH). Same thing in Phil. 2:9-11 which alludes to Isa. 45:23.

Trinitarians can account for Unitarian prooftexts, but (IMO) Unitarians cannot (truly and fully) account for Trinitarian prooftexts. Unless one is willing to affirm that there's a contradiction regarding how YHWH defines monotheism in the OT and monotheism in the NT. In the OT YHWH does His very best to distinguish Himself from all others besides Himself, yet in the NT He does His very best to have Jesus as close to Him on His side of the Creator/creature divide as possible without identifying the Son with the Father (Modalism).

These are all synonyms for the Deity. It's not as if "God" without the "true" adjective refers to a false God. It's not as if "God" without the "one" adjective refers to a second, third, or fourth God.

Sometimes Scripture uses fuller descriptors, sometimes a bare descriptor like "God" or "Lord". Therefore, you can't act as if the addition or omission of an adjective is ipso facto used to differentiate one referent from another. It's not as if "God" stands in contrast to "the one God", which stands in contrast to "the true God", which stands in contrast to "the one true God"–as several different deities.

"And the one to whom they refer is the Father."

To the contrary, Jesus is sometimes the referent of "God", and frequently the referent of Kyrios (as the LXX equivalent of Yahweh).

"Interestingly, not the Trinity."

Dale, try not to be obtuse. The Bible isn't written in the nomenclature of philosophical theology.

"Tellingly, there is no biblical term what was originally meant to refer to the Trinity. Why do you suppose that is?"

Dale is a unitarian. Tellingly, there is no biblical term for unitarian. Dale is an open theist. Tellingly, there is no biblical term for open theism.

Do you have any more brilliant observations regarding Biblical vocabulary?

"I'm reading the whole sentence, and every word for its function in it."

So you're telling me you can't follow the argument. I didn't deny that every word has a function. Rather, I explained, it's fallacious to assume each word in a synonymous descriptor carries *independent* semantic force. Are you able to absorb that distinction, or is it too subtle for you?

"No, I'm not committed to that misreading."

I'm just responding to you on your own grounds. It's no more or less a misreading than your tendentious gloss on Jn 20:17.

"'Any' and 'all' are context-relative; the context supplies the domain in question."

Steve: "To the contrary, Jesus is sometimes the referent of "God", and frequently the referent of Kyrios (as the LXX equivalent of Yahweh)."

Of course, that is fine with me. My point was not that 100% of the time, those terms refer to God/the Father. Rather, look at the overall pattern of use. "God" etc. is the Father nearly always. "Lord" in the NT takes on a new meaning based on Psalm 110:1 - a "lord" in distinction to "the LORD."

"different descriptors can have the same referent"

Umm, this is not news to me. But this doesn't help you to evade the force of John 17:1-3, or to make it consistent with the one God being the Trinity. For all the words you've multiplied, you've done nothing to blunt the force of the clear Obama parallel.

"Do you have any more brilliant observations regarding Biblical vocabulary?"

You seem to think that I just object to nonbiblical terms in general. Nope. I have no objection to any useful term. The argument is rather,

1. If the Bible taught a triune God, it would employ a term meant to refer to the triune God.2. The Bible contains no term meant to refer to the triune God.3. Ergo, the Bible does not teach a triune God.

2 is true; we know 2 by way of biblical scholarship. The God-terms there nearly always mean the Father, and arguably a few times refer to the Son. Never to a triune god; that'd be a clear anachronism if we claimed to see this later idea in the 1st c or earlier.

1 is plausible by common sense.

And the argument is valid. We have a plausible argument for 3 then. Interestingly, many Catholic scholars agree. But trinitarian Protestants are duty-bound to *somehow* derive the Trinity from the Bible.

It's not to the point to observe that "unitarian" isn't in the Bible. "Monotheism" isn't there either. But the Bible teaches it by teaching that YHWH is the only god. And it's unitarian because it numerically identifies YHWH with the Father only.

In the case of such terms, the parallel to 1 would not be plausible. There is no obvious need for an abstract term like "monotheism" or "unitarian." It is quite easy to express such claims without such terms.

But of course the whole point of Christianity is to help us relate to our Maker, the one God. So we would expect a term to refer to that one, to (in your view) the Trinity. Yes, I think it is logically possible that the sources should imply a triune god without having a term to refer to such. But this is unbelievable. Consider worship. We need to address God to worship him in word or song. But the Trinity is never addressed?!

The confusion between the plural-referring term "trinity" and the singular referring term "Trinity," I think, plays a role in obscuring this. It's easy to talk about all the members of a (small) group or set without any term for the whole set. But we typically do have a singular referring term for any being which is important to us.

BTW it's hilarious to call it a "tendentious gloss on Jn 20:17" that there, the Father is Jesus's god/God. I guess just reading the phrase "my God" can be tendentious!

Yes, I think it is logically possible that the sources should imply a triune god without having a term to refer to such. But this is unbelievable. Consider worship. We need to address God to worship him in word or song. But the Trinity is never addressed?!

Worship includes invocations. The Aaronic Blessing is trinal and so suggestive of the Trinity. As the JFB commentary states, The repetition of the name “Lord” or “Jehovah” three times, expresses the great mystery of the Godhead - three persons, and yet one God. The expressions in the separate clauses correspond to the respective offices of the Father, to “bless and keep us”; of the Son, to be “gracious to us”; and of the Holy Ghost, to “give us peace.”

Or as Adam Clarke states, Others will doubtless interpret it after their manner. Several wise and learned men believe that the mystery of the Holy Trinity is not obscurely hinted at in it. God the Father blesses and keeps his followers. God the Son is gracious unto sinners in remitting their offenses, which he died to blot out. God the Holy Spirit takes of the things which are Christ’s, and shows them unto genuine Christians, and diffuses the peace of God in their hearts. In a word, Christ, the gift of the Father by the energy of the Holy Spirit, came to bless every one of us by turning us away from our iniquities.

Or John Gill states, Jehovah, Father, Son, and Spirit; the word "Jehovah" being three times used, and a different accent put to each word, denoting three distinct persons and one Jehovah, according to Deu_6:4; who are each of them concerned in the blessing of the Lord's people, the spiritual Israel of God; Jehovah the Father blesses with all spiritual blessings, with electing, adopting, justifying, and pardoning grace, with regenerating and calling, and persevering grace, and with eternal life: Jehovah the Son blesses particularly with redeeming grace, and has a concern in all the other blessings; the saints are blessed with them in him, they are all in his hands, they are procured by him, come through him, and are the gifts of his grace: and Jehovah the Spirit blesses as a spirit of regeneration and sanctification, as the spirit of faith, as a comforter, as the spirit of adoption, and as the earnest and sealer of the saints unto the day of redemption:

For the LORD[#1] is our judge; the LORD[#2] is our lawgiver; the LORD[#3] is our king; he will save us.- Isa. 33:22

And one called to another and said: "Holy[#1], holy[#2], holy[#3] is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"- Isa. 6:3 [cf. Rev. 4:8]

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[#1] and the love of God[#2] and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit[#3] be with you all.- 2 Cor. 13:14

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit[#1]; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord[#2]; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God[#3] who empowers them all in everyone.- 1 Cor. 12:4-6

4 There is one body and one Spirit[#1]---just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--- 5 one Lord[#2], one faith, one baptism, 6 one God[#3] and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.- Eph. 4:4-6

According to the first note of chapter 4 in Putting Jesus in His Place by Robert Bowman, J. Ed Komoszewski:

The Trinitarian pattern is noted by R.T. France, "The Worship of Jesus: A Neglected Factor in Christological Debate?" in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (Leicester, UK; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982), 30. For a review of over sixty such "Trinitarian" passages in the New Testament, see Robert M. Bowman Jr., Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 127-31.

"Lord" in the NT takes on a new meaning based on Psalm 110:1 - a "lord" in distinction to "the LORD."

Ps 110:1 is by no means the only Yahwistic affirmation that's applied to Jesus in the NT.

"But this doesn't help you to evade the force of John 17:1-3, or to make it consistent with the one God being the Trinity."

Sure it does, because you act as if the combination of words in the title ("only true God") picks out the Father in contrast to a title that doesn't have the same combination of words. But if you're going to construe that verbal formula in exclusionary terms, then other divine titles can't refer to the Father. So your contention either proves too much or too little. You have yet to grasp the argument. You can't treat the title in Jn 17:3 as discriminatory without generating multiple gods, which is quite ironic for a unitarian.

"1. If the Bible taught a triune God, it would employ a term meant to refer to the triune God."

That's not even slightly plausible.

"The God-terms there nearly always mean the Father, and arguably a few times refer to the Son. Never to a triune god; that'd be a clear anachronism if we claimed to see this later idea in the 1st c or earlier."

i) If you mean the NT theos-terms, that's true. If you mean the NT-kurios (=Yahweh) terms, that's overstated.

ii) It's a clear anachronism for you to claim OT God-terms always (or nearly always) refer to the Father.

"But the Bible teaches it by teaching that YHWH is the only god. And it's unitarian because it numerically identifies YHWH with the Father only."

The NT applies Yahweh-terms and Yahwehistic texts to the Son as well as the Father, so your assertion is demonstrably false. It no more or less numerically identifies Yahweh with the Father only than with the Son only.

"But of course the whole point of Christianity is to help us relate to our Maker, the one God. So we would expect a term to refer to that one, to (in your view) the Trinity."

Actually, we wouldn't expect that. Given a division of labor in the economic Trinity, we'd expect Christians to relate to the members of the Trinity individually, given the different roles they assume in the economy of salvation.

Your appeal to Jn 20:17 operates at the level of a Jehovah's Witness. There's a Trinitarian distinction between the Father and the Son *Incarnate*. You reject that, but if you're going to argue that Jn 20:17 is inconsistent with Trinitarian, Incarnational theism, you need to assume that viewpoint for the sake of argument, then show how that's inconsistent with Trinitarian, Incarnational theism on its own grounds.

Your objection only makes sense on a unitarian interpretation of Jn 20:17, which is fundamentally confused, because it makes you generate a contradiction in the opposing position by eliminating a crucial distinction in the opposing position. You've become a philosophical slacker.

"Ps 110:1 is by no means the only Yahwistic affirmation that's applied to Jesus in the NT."

It is *not* a "Yahwistic formulation". I believe Anthony Buzzard has pointed out that "my lord" (adoni) is never used of God, but only of humans in charge. Also, we see that here "my Lord" is someone other than God. Many scholars think that originally "my Lord" was David.

"if you're going to construe that verbal formula in exclusionary terms, then other divine titles can't refer to the Father. So your contention either proves too much or too little. You have yet to grasp the argument. You can't treat the title in Jn 17:3 as discriminatory without generating multiple gods, which is quite ironic for a unitarian."

You're right, Steve. I do not grasp whatever argument you're trying to mount here. I think you're just not grasping the point about there being two claims assumed there, and not one (that the Father "one true God").

About the NT's applying "Yahwehistic texts to the Son," there is a clear fallacy here, which I see frequently in recent evangelical scholarship, but which I don't see in older material. It goes like this:

1. The OT text predicts F for God.2. The NT texts quotes that OT text and says F is fulfilled by Jesus.3. Therefore, Jesus is God.

3 just doesn't follow. Instead, the NT writer is (1) reapplying the text to Jesus, asserting it to have a second fulfillment (e.g. emmanuel prophecy), or (2) asserting God to be working through Jesus. (e.g. make straight the path of the Lord) It's just a mistake to think they're identifying God with Jesus, or making some claim about Jesus's essence. These authors are constantly distinguishing God from Jesus, and of course it is an anachronism to try to spin this as distinguishing "Persons" in God.

"we'd expect Christians to relate to the members of the Trinity individually"

A whopper of a claim, if indeed you think that the one God is the Trinity. We don't need to address the one God as such, but only his "Persons" - whatever you think those are? I just you're just going to stonewall this one though.

"Your appeal to Jn 20:17 operates at the level of a Jehovah's Witness. There's a Trinitarian distinction between the Father and the Son *Incarnate*. You reject that, but if you're going to argue that Jn 20:17 is inconsistent with Trinitarian, Incarnational theism, you need to assume that viewpoint for the sake of argument, then show how that's inconsistent with Trinitarian, Incarnational theism on its own grounds."

A big load of charges and words, all to get around a clear statement that the Father is both Jesus's god and ours. It's unclear what your reading is, as you prefer to go on the offensive. Perhaps you want to say that the Son qua human has a god, but that the Son qua divine doesn't. If so, sorry, but that's unintelligible.

"Granting all of that, your theory still has a tough problem with Jesus's statement in two gospels that he doesn't know the day or hour. In your view, he *does* know it, just not in the normal human way. But he hasn't denied knowing it in the normal human way; he's just denied knowing it, with no hint at any qualification. Of course, he knew full well that his hearers would think he didn't know it in any way. Thus, on your theory Jesus lied to his disciples on that occasion. This is an unwelcome consequence to be sure."

i) There's more than one audience. There's the immediate audience for the Olivet Discourse, then there's the audience for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. A reader has a responsibility to take Synoptic Christology as a whole into consideration when interpreting any particular statement or action by Christ. For that matter, after the dust settles, the disciples have a responsibility to interpret statements and actions of Jesus with the benefit of hindsight.

ii) You willfully oversimplify the issue. According to Incarnational Christology, it's inaccurate to say Jesus knows it, simpliciter. Rather, Jesus knows it in one respect, but doesn't know it in another respect. It's true to say he doesn't know it, but not the whole truth.

It's like answering a complex question, where a yes or no answer isn't simply true or simply false, but incomplete. Each answer is true up to a point.

The Gospels aren't written in the pedantically qualified language of philosophical theology.

iii) Distinguishing between Christ's divine omniscience and his human innocence isn't an ad hoc distinction for Incarnational theology. Rather, the Incarnate Son must live in dependance on the Father, just as pious Jews and Christians must live by faith in divine providence. The work of Christ has an exemplary aspect for Christians.

iv) In addition, there's the paradox of foreknowledge. Knowing the future can interject a countersuggestive or counterfactual dynamic that changes the future. Knowing the future, I may act differently in the present than if I lack that advance knowledge. If I have a reliable premonition that my mother will be crippled by a traffic accident next Tuesday, I will preempt that eventuality by making sure she never leaves the house next Tuesday.

The alternative is to be trapped in a fatalistic situation where you foreknow the outcome, but are somehow impeded from changing the outcome.

Such scenarios distinguish between the actual future and hypothetical futures. Which pathway, which alternate possibility, becomes the actual future depends on what agents do at present. Counterfactual knowledge of what might happen affects our choice, which in turn affects what will happen. That's a familiar conundrum of time-travel scenarios.

For Jesus to be human as well as divine, he cannot have exhaustive knowledge of the future, for if he did, that of itself would alter the course of events. To be truly human, he must sometimes (or oftentimes) be subject to the same epistemic limitations as other shortsighted humans, since how we act with a view to the future is contingent on the foreseeable or unforeseeable consequences of our own actions or the actions of others.

I realize that you reject all this. Your problem, though, is that when you accuse Trinitarian, Incarnational theism of inconsistencies, you must make full allowance for the implications of that position. And that's something you routinely fail to do. You constantly judge the opposing position by your unitarian yardstick. Yet that only shows the opposing position to be inconsistent with unitarian assumptions and interpretations, which does nothing to disprove the opposing position. It simply highlights the contrast between the respective positions.

"It is *not* a 'Yahwistic formulation'. I believe Anthony Buzzard has pointed out that 'my lord' (adoni) is never used of God, but only of humans in charge. Also, we see that here 'my Lord' is someone other than God. Many scholars think that originally 'my Lord' was David."

Dale, I'm not the one who interjected Ps 110:1 into this discussion. That would be you. I'm just responding to you.

But since you bring it up, there are three different referents in that passage: (i) David (the speaker, the Psalmist), (ii) Adonai, and (iii) Yahweh. So who is David's Adonai? He has no human superior. He has no superior on earth. He's the anointed king of Israel. And if you accept the NT messianic interpretation, it can't be an angel. Yu yourself are a "humanitarian unitarian," so you don't think Jesus is an angel. Hence, by process of elimination, it must refer to God.

The Adonai can't be David since the Psalmist is the subject while the Adoni is the object. The Adonai isn't identical with the Psalmist. Rather, the Adonai is the Psalmist's lord or Lord ("my Adonai").

You can only say it was originally David if you buy into a source critical theory that denies the NT messianic appropriation of the text.

1. Dale, the Yahwistic texts aren't confined to predictions, although a few are. But even in the case of predictions about the coming of Yahweh, if that always and only refers to Yahweh "coming" via a human intermediary, Yahweh "coming" in the person of a human representative, then Yahweh never actually comes. But in that event the eschatological predictions are anticlimactic, because it's just more of the same, like Yahweh "coming" in the person of a prophet or priest or king. There's no progression. No real fulfillment.

2. Moreover, even some of the predictions have the person who fulfills the oracle exercising uniquely Yahwistic prerogatives.

3. Let's consider some Yahwistic texts that the NT applies to Jesus:

i) 1 Cor 8:6. That paraphrases Deut 6:4. That's the seminal Jewish confession of the true God. Yet Paul subdivides it to make a parallel between the Father and the Son, where the Father is "God" (=Elohim) and the Son is "Lord" (=Yahweh). That puts Jesus on exactly the same footing as Yahweh.

ii) Take the Alpha and Omega passages in Revelation. In Rev 1:8 & 21:6 these refer to the Father, but in Rev 1:17 & 22:13, these refer to the Son. The titles go back to Yahwistic titles in Isa 41:4, 44:6 & 48:12 where they single out Yahweh as the true God, in contrast to pagan idolatry. The Apocalypse puts Jesus on a par with Yahweh and the Father.

iii) Jn 8:58. That's in the context of a debate over the identity of Jesus. Jesus makes a self-referential statement that alludes to paradigmatic statements about Yahweh in Exod 3:14, Isa 41:4; 43:10,13,25; 45:18 & 51:12. Those OT statements distinguish the true God from pagan idolatry.

iv) Heb 1:11-12 applies Ps 102:26-27 to Jesus. The psalm describes God as the preexistent, immutable, everlasting Creator of the world. To be the absolute Creator is one of the distinguishing actions that differentiates the true God from everything that's not God. That differentiates the Creator from creatures. If you claim the Son is a creature, that erases the categorical distinction.

v) Heb 1:6 applies Deut 32:43 to the Son. In the Biblical hierarchy of creation, to be above the angels is to be God.

Moreover, in the OT context, God is jealously possessive and proprietary about worship. That stands in contrast to pagan idolatry. If you think Jesus is just human or a creature, that obliterates the contextual distinction between proper worship and idolatrous worship.

I'd add that in his commentary, Luke Timothy Johnson argues that the "more excellent name" which the messiah inherits in Heb 1:4 is "Yahweh". Yet in the OT, God is jealously possessive about his name. He doesn't share his name with creatures.

I've always marveled at Jehovah's Witnesses (and by extension other unitarians) who deny Jesus' deity. If Jesus is not God but more than a normal human and, indeed, higher than even angels, what does that make Him? He must be a highly-exalted demigod who pre-existed the rest of creation, through whom God made the universe, is the Savior of the world and loftier than the highest angel. And the NT establishes a church and pattern of religion centered around his worship, commanding us to trust and hope in Him and obey his word. But such a demigod is certainly alien to OT religion. The logical consequences of unitarianism are far more problematic than anything trinitarianism entails.

"Granting all of that, your theory still has a tough problem with Jesus's statement in two gospels that he doesn't know the day or hour. In your view, he *does* know it, just not in the normal human way. But he hasn't denied knowing it in the normal human way; he's just denied knowing it, with no hint at any qualification. Of course, he knew full well that his hearers would think he didn't know it in any way. Thus, on your theory Jesus lied to his disciples on that occasion. This is an unwelcome consequence to be sure."

That's a very droll objection coming from an open theist like Dale. On Dale's view, the Father doesn't know the day or hour. According to open theism, God doesn't know the future. The Father can hardly have a date certain for the Parousia. Does Dale think the Father set a purely arbitrary date for the Parousia, that has nothing to do with what else is happening at the time? According to the Olivet Discourse, which Dale is alluding to, not to mention other related passages, the Parousia won't happen and can't happen until certain events occur as a necessary prelude to the Parousia. Since, however, these involve human agents with librarian freedom, when preliminary events contingent on their actions will eventuate is unpredictable, even for God. Indeed, it isn't even clear if they will ever occur, given the vicissitudes of libertarian freedom. By Dale's logic, Jesus should have said the Son doesn't know the day or hour, and what is more, the Father doesn't know the day or hour. Thus, on Dale's theory, Jesus lied to his disciples on that occasion. This is an unwelcome consequence to be sure.

"Granting all of that, your theory still has a tough problem with Jesus's statement in two gospels that he doesn't know the day or hour. In your view, he *does* know it, just not in the normal human way. But he hasn't denied knowing it in the normal human way; he's just denied knowing it, with no hint at any qualification. Of course, he knew full well that his hearers would think he didn't know it in any way. Thus, on your theory Jesus lied to his disciples on that occasion. This is an unwelcome consequence to be sure."

So on my "theory," Dale thinks Jesus should have said something like, "Due to the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures, the Son qua divine knows the day and hour, but the Son qua human does not, inasmuch as the communicatio idiomatum only applies to the person, and not to the respective natures."

Dale, your appeal to Jn 17:3 is like inferring from the existence of Primo Levi that there's just one Levi in the world, there can only be one Levi, since that's what his name means!

If, in Jn 17:3, "the only true God" is a synonym for Yahweh, then it doesn't single out the Father alone as God, to the exclusion of other candidates–especially in a Gospel that bears repeated witness to the deity of Christ.

In view of what follows in the catena most commentators have taken the name here [Heb 1:4] to be "Son". But this is confusion. The name that is so much more excellent than those of angels must be the Hebrew divine name, the Tetragrammaton, which is also said to be conferred on Jesus at his exaltation in Phil 2:9 ("the name that is above every name"). In our passage of Hebrews, the Son is the one who inherits the name of his Father, not what he inherits. What he inherits must be something that belongs to his Father, whereas "Son" is uniquely the Son's title. Rather it is because he is Son, as the angels are not, that he inherits his Father's name, as angels cannot. "The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews," R. Bauckham ed al. eds. The Epistle to the Hebrews in Christian Theology (Eerdmans, 2009), 21-22.

For an exegetical defense of "Yahweh" as the name Jesus inherits in Phil 2:9, cf. P. T. O'Brien, Commentary on Philippians (Eerdmans, 1991), 237-38.

footnotes:8 See also 1Samuel 17:26, 36 & Jeremiah 10:10, 23:36 for “living Gods”9 See also Psalm 149:2 for “Makers”10 Nearly every occurrence of the noun “Lord” ( ע אדֹולנהים ) in reference to God appears in the plural form.

Annoyed, this sort of hint-hunting is depressing. "Elohim" is structurally plural, like our word "pants." But when it is used with a singular noun, it is understood to have a singular meaning, to mean "God" and not "gods." That is all. It is no more a hint of plurality than my use of "pants." It's just projection, sorry. And it pales in comparison to the overwhelming use of singular personal pronouns by and about God. That's how we know God in the OT is a he, and not they.

To address the fact that OT passages often refer to two persons as YHWH?

To address the fact that the Angel of YHWH is often predicated as being YHWH?

To address the fact that God had the opportunity in the OT to use only singular nouns, singular pronouns, singular verbs, singular adverbs, singular adjectives for Himself but decided not to? I mean, just the word "elohim" (which is plural in form) is used THOUSANDS of times to refer to the true God. If Unitarianism is true, then God missed a great opportunity to affirm Unitarianism. It would also appear that God didn't have much foresight in realizing that He might be confusing people by uses such pluralistic language regarding Himself THOUSANDS of times.

Annoyed's OT texts show how close Tuggy is to throwing in the towel. Based on his presuppositions it would be far easier to admit these texts reflect the original polytheistic nature of ancient Israel's worship. It is unthinkable that the ancient Jews alone amongst all people held to an absolute monotheism.

This isn't refusing to read the OT on it's own terms mind you. It's just being "generous" with regard to our reading of the OT. There's simply no way Israel only believed in one God. Not possible.

Enter the "Christian Polytheists."

I was reading Daniel Strange's Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock a couple of months ago and thought of Tuggy when Strange discussed Robert Goldenberg's book The Nations that Knew Thee Not. Goldenberg is a bit more honest than Tuggy, asserting that the OT is not consistent on how other nations were to respond to Yahweh, but he goes through the standard OT proof texts for worldwide Yahwistic monotheism and comes to the conclusion that Israel alone was directed to worship its god. The other nations are free to worship their ancestral deities which, according to Goldenberg, the OT not only affirms the existence of but also their control of other territories!

"Based on his presuppositions it would be far easier to admit these texts reflect the original polytheistic nature of ancient Israel's worship."

See the work of Dr. Mike Heiser on ancient Hebrew theology. Yes, they thought the "gods" of the nations were real beings. But not really comparable to YHWH in knowledge, goodness, power, or providence. Still, both they and God could be referred to as "elohim." Later, they reserve nearly all god-talk for him, to emphasize his uniqueness.

The terms "God" and "Lord" can be used as equivalents in the Greek language and culture as can be seen 1 Cor. 8:5.

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth---as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"- 1 Cor. 8:5 ESV

So, pointing out the fact that the Father is usually called "God" and the Son is usually called "Lord" doesn't tell us whether one term is intrinsically higher in status than the other. It seems to me that if the Apostles were Unitarians, they would have more likely chosen to refer to the Son more consistently as "God" and the Father as "Lord" based on the LXX. Since we know that in both Greek and Hebrew most (if not all) of the various words for God/gods (el, elohim, eloah, theos etc.) can be used of the true God as well as lesser gods. Whereas when it comes to the true God's personal name YHWH, it is usually translated in the Septuagint as kurios (though, some manuscripts of the LXX actually have the tetragrammaton written out).

What better way for the Apostles to indicate and emphasize that the Father alone is YHWH than by reserving the term kurios to the Father while using the term theos for the Son. But on the contrary, the NT usage is the very opposite. The Son is usually termed "kurios" and the Father "God". And as Richard Bauckham points out in his article:

"When we consider the scriptural texts about YHWH that Paul applies to Jesus within their scriptural context, it is remarkable how many of them either function as monotheistic assertions in themselves or relate to a monotheistic assertion in the fairly immediate context:"

Then Bauckham cites many passages in the NT where OT passage referring to YHWH is applied to Christ. After which he write:

"By contrast, only a relatively small proportion of the scriptural texts in which Paul takes YHWH to be God can arguably be related to eschatological monotheism (Isa 10:22-23; Isa 40:13; Deut 32:35; Isa 52:11; Deut 32:21b; Isa 59:20-21), and few of these have a clear monotheistic assertion in their context (Isa 40:13; Deut 32:35; Deut 32:21b), whereas almost all of the texts just discussed, in which YHWH is taken to be Jesus, do have such a monotheistic assertion in their context."

Given Unitarianism, one would expect the opposite to be true. However, all this goes to show that it's more likely that the Apostles specifically chose to assign the term "kurios" to the Son in order to make it clear that they do believe He is YHWH. It makes most sense of passages like Rom. 10:9-13, Phil. 2:6-11, 1 Cor. 8:6.

Above I mentioned how 1 Cor. 8:5 makes the pagan use of the term "god" and "lord" as synonyms. If so, then the very next verse, 1 Cor. 8:6, suggests the equality of the Father and the Son despite the fact that the Father is termed "God" and the Son "Lord" since the previous verse uses those terms as interchangeable. This is especially true if the scholarly conclusion is true that Paul is applying the Shema in a unique way as referring to both the Father and the Son jointly.